6.6.12

O'SULLIVAN'S BIG BREAK

There’s
an iconic shot of Alex Higgins facing the press after his six-tournament ban
for headbutting an official at the 1986 UK Championship.

Higgins
takes a call from a ludicrously over-sized mobile phone – and early model – and
is then asked if he can survive without snooker. Quick as a flash, he responds:
“can snooker survive without me?”

It
was typical Higgins: bold, brash and biting. However, we soon found out the
answer: yes. Snooker did survive because snooker is bigger than any one player.

Even
so, it is a blow to the sport that Ronnie O’Sullivan has today announced that he
will not be entering the Premier League and forthcoming WPBSA tournaments. He has
described the players’ contract as ‘onerous.’

He
said after winning a fourth world title that he would be taking a six-month
break. I suspect that actually deciding to follow through with this will not
have been easy for a player who has played professionally now for 20 years.

I
think World Snooker’s attitude is that O’Sullivan is no different to any other
player, that they all have a choice whether to play or not.

There
are two points here, though:

1)O’Sullivan,
as world champion, is seeded second for all tournaments other than those in
which he is defending champion. His world ranking – this season at least – therefore
doesn’t really matter so he can afford to be more choosy.

2)He
is the game’s leading box office attraction. He is the player who has done more
than any other in the last 10 years to attract people to snooker.

However, I
don’t believe World Snooker should pay the players appearance money. If
individual sponsors want to do so then that is within their right.

The
Premier League is a long established tournament but is not regarded as one of
snooker’s majors.

However,
it is an event O’Sullivan has dominated in recent times, winning it on ten occasions.
It is a competition which seems to suit his temperament: short, one night
matches rather than long weeks away from home.

I’ve
never seen a players’ contract so am in no position to comment on them,
although a few players have expressed concerns about some of the stipulations.

Stephen
Hendry retired in part because the crowded schedule did not allow him to pursue
promotional engagements. To lose one legend from the circuit may be seen as
unfortunate, to lose two perhaps is more serious.

But
professional snooker should not be arranged around a couple of superstars. World
Snooker exists to promote the game, to provide playing opportunities and to reward
players who are successful.

I
hope Ronnie enjoys his break. I hope we see him back playing his seductive style of
the game later in the season.

Theres no story here. He said, before he won the German masters that if he had to qualify so be it, so obviously wasn't considering retirement. After winning the WC, he said he was taking a six month break, and really, who can blame him.Hes earned the right to pick and choose, hes financially independant, and from a fans viewpoint, this is infinitely preferable to retirement, or no shows after entering.

is there a fear that due to the amount of money given to players through sponserships and promotional events, that more players will be less committed to the main tour, similar to the 20/20 cricket indian premier league

Snooker players were independent contractors - sadly they turned a globally popular game into a virtually bankrupt business.

John Higgins and Mark Williams were great players but they did not promote the game like Davis and Hendry. Instead Higgins almost dealt a death blow to the game in the UK by his spectacular idiocy and Williams behaves like a juvenile or worse.

Ronnie is self indulgent too. Someone needs to sit him in a room and get him to repeat "I have never had a job" 1000 times.